Inside Out 2

This is a version of review appearing on ABC Statewide Mornings across regional Victoria on June 27, 2024. 

(PG) ★★★★

Director: Pete Docter.

Cast: (voices of) Amy Poehler, Maya Hawke, Kensington Tallman, Liza Lapira, Tony Hale, Lewis Black, Phyllis Smith, Ayo Edebiri, Lilimar, Grace Lu, Sumayyah Nuriddin-Green, Adèle Exarchopoulos, Diane Lane, Kyle MacLachlan, Paul Walter Hauser, Yvette Nicole Brown.

The sequel light was going off at Pixar headquarters.

I still stand by what I said - Inside Out is the greatest Pixar movie there is. It's superlative script took its Herman's Head-like premise and infused it with sparkly fun and sincere sentiments that examined the trials and tribulations of pre-teen life. It turned emotions into characters into themes into plot points into everything. And it did it all effortlessly, but with hilarity and heart.

Can a sequel top that? Or even match that?

Of course not. But Inside Out 2 is smart enough to follow the tried-and-true path of sequels since time immemorial - do the same thing, but more. It falters along the way, backing itself into a corner so that it has to find the most ridiculous way out, but it's still a stunningly real coming-of-age story told predominantly via an absurdist blend of pop-psychology and Pixar pizazz. 

In the first film, Riley was 11 and grappling with the pressures of moving to a new state, a new school and new life. Here, she's 13 and off to ice hockey camp, where she has to struggle with a combination of new emotions, new pressures, and a new-found desire to fit in. Meanwhile, in the control room of her mind, her core emotional team of Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust find themselves on the outer as the Puberty Team of Anxiety, Envy, Ennui and Embarrassment take over.

Aside from its predecessor, it's hard to think of a coming-of-age film that is as realistic as this that doesn't include a romantic arc. Riley's inner struggle is the focus - the main villain is her own Anxiety, while the hero is her own Joy. What was true in the first film is true here - the anthropomorphism of her emotions is not just a cute stunt. It digs into the very nature of self as we determine who we are as we get older. There's a line here that asks whether Joy becomes less relevant as an emotion as we get older, and ouch, that hurts.

The whole thing is incredibly relatable and, as with the first film, it's wonderfully written. Her emotions are fully fledged characters and they're also pivotal to the plot and the film's thematic core. And once again, the jokes are strong, the world-building is incredible, the production design fun, and there's enough silliness to appeal to the younger kids who are yet to experience the heavy themes firsthand.

Pixar's real triumph is making something that anyone who was ever a teenager can probably relate to. Whether it be doing stupid stuff when we've let Anxiety take the wheel or lying about who we really are in order to fit in or bottling up our emotions to try and get by, Inside Out 2 sees you, knows you and is you. 

The biggest flaw is a deus ex machina that helps dig the characters out of a massive hole in the final act. Having pushed its heroic five original emotions to breaking point, the script struggles to unbreak things. What makes matters worse is that it throws back to the worst part of the movie in order to save the day, thereby repeating the mistakes made earlier.

But there is a lot to love, the main thing being the emotional struggle that its teenaged heroine and her ragtag team of feelings face as they try to find their place in the world and not ruin the rest of their lives. Being a teen is tough, and Pixar gets it.

Jim Henson: Idea Man

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Victoria's Statewide Mornings program on June 13, 2024.

(PG) ★★★★

Director: Ron Howard.

"I love you, man."
"I love you, frog."

I love The Muppets. When people ask me my favourite movie of all time, which they often do, I give them three: Raiders Of The Lost Ark, The Wizard Of Oz, and The Muppet Movie. The Muppets was my favourite TV show as a kid. Hell, Animal was my imaginary friend when I was a kid. We went to the Noorat Show together.

I watched every episode of The Muppets Show when I was young, and I love the first two Muppet films - The Muppet Movie and The Great Muppet Caper (and deeply respect The Muppets Take Manhattan). But I'm not a completist. I've seen the 2011 reboot and its sequel, but I still haven't watched The Muppet Christmas Carol or Muppets From Space, nor have I gotten around to watching Muppets Now or Muppets Mayhem. It's almost as if a significant part of The Muppets died for me when Jim Henson did.

Watching Ron Howard's touching but honest portrait of Muppets' creator Jim Henson takes me back to that childlike wonder I had for those ridiculous marionettes/puppets and their oddball antics. They were bizarre creations, even back in the '70s and '80s, and continue to be. And at the heart of the weirdness and heartfelt insanity - at least in the glory days - was Henson. 

So much of Henson was imbued into everything he did, not just in The Muppet Show. Kermit was his alter-ego, but his aspirations for a better world shone through in his work on Sesame Street and Fraggle Rock. His boundless artistry, his passion for classic storytelling, and his desire to push the limits of a long-ignored artform are part of what made The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth so great. 

These are the things that Howard brings to the fore in the documentary. Early on, we see a clip of Orson Welles calling Henson "a genius" and it's hard to disagree. Through Henson's experimental early work and formative years honing his craft in advertisements and late night TV, we get a picture of a driven and immensely talented young man.

That drive had its downside, and Idea Man doesn't back away from that. His children had to work on his creative projects in order to spend time with him, and his wife rarely saw him or got her dues or got to contribute, despite her obvious skills. Everything gets sidelined - even his health - to make way for his artistry.

It's part of the tragedy buried in this beautiful documentary, along with his early untimely death. Henson crammed more in to one life than most people would into three, but it came at a cost. He burned bright and fast.

Unfortunately Idea Man is also too bright and fast. An ideal beginners guide, it will frustrate fans who have heard much of this before. Howard has access to some previously unseen material, which still makes it worthwhile, but the bulk of the content is familiar territory. The best bits are the recollections of his co-workers - for more of that, check out the doco Muppet Guys Talking.

But it's hard to go wrong with such great talent discussing such a great talent. It's an oddly heartwarming and heartbreaking tale, told beautifully. Howard has enough sense to let much of Henson's own art tell the story, along with the voices of those who knew him well, including Henson himself, and some excellent behind the scenes footage. Henson was gone too soon, and this doco is a great gateway into his incredible legacy.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Victoria's Statewide Mornings program on May 30, 2024.

(MA15+) ★★★★

Director: George Miller.

Cast: Anya Taylor-Joy, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Burke, Lachy Hulme, George Shevtsov, John Howard, Angus Sampson, Nathan Jones, Josh Helman, Charlee Fraser.

Hemsworth was left profoundly disappointed by the human zoo.

Go back and watch the original Mad Max film from 1979. The vehicular violence and sense of dread is there, but it doesn't feel even remotely like it's sitting in the same franchise as, say,  Fury Road. It's an even wilder difference than watching the first Fast & Furious next to Fast X.

But here we are with the fifth film in the Mad Max saga, which, again, looks nothing like the 1979 original. Hell - this film doesn't even need Max - just the "Mad" bit. It's about the utterly insane world Miller has built - a post-apocalyptic wasteland in Australia's red centre where hordes of bikies and armoured oil tankers traverse the desert, leaving behind a trail of blood and body parts. 

As the title suggests, this is about Furiosa, a character introduced in Fury Road and played there by Charlize Theron. This is her origin story, showing us how this one-armed bad-arse, now played by Taylor-Joy came to be such a one-armed bad-arse. It tracks her from her childhood, whisked away from a hidden utopia in the Wastelands, and thrust into the very worst that humanity has left to offer.

Whereas Fury Road largely ditched conventional movie furniture such as dialogue, character development and arcs in favour of balls-out action and ludicrous car chases, Furiosa is, by comparison, a more refined and traditional film, if such a thing can be said of a movie where a person is drawn and quartered by five motorbikes. Miller knows his world well, and revels in its dust, blood, and madness, but much like he did with Mad Max II and Beyond Thunderdome, we get to see how that world shapes the people who live in it.

Furiosa still keeps its furniture to a minimum. Despite playing the titular character, Taylor-Joy only gets a couple dozen lines, and is left to convey a lot with a steely look and a sneer, which she does admirably. The physicality of the role is key here, and she pulls it off the necessary amount of determination and desperation. 

The lion's share of the lines go to Hemsworth as the nasally voiced wannabe-warlord Dementus. It's a great performance, suitably demented, and somewhat restrained when you consider how off the hook this could have been played. Hemsworth keeps it fun amid the death and destruction, and even makes him vaguely empathetic in places. In the Aussie actor's growing CV, it's not only one of his most interesting and against-type roles, it's also easily one of his best.

The real star is Miller though. His world gets to sit in centre-stage more so than any previous Mad Max film. This is a look at how the Wastelands functions, even hinting at how it got here. It's insane, but beautiful and intricate in its bonkersness. And it looks incredible, a few dodgy bits of CGI aside. The elaborately orchestrated chases and battles are here, though somewhat diminished in the shadow of Fury Road, but once again, this is high-octane stuff. The stuntwork is remarkable, the cinematography stunning, and Miller's direction throws you facefirst into the dust, grit and whirring propellers. 

The inevitable question is "where does this sit compared to the rest of the saga?". While painted with many of the same colours as Fury Road, it's a different beast that doesn't quite wow like its predecessor (or Mad Max II for that matter), but is great nonetheless. Furiosa is the third best Mad Max film to date, and that's nothing to scoff at.

Freud's Last Session

(M) ★★★

Director: Matthew Brown.

Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Matthew Goode, Liv Lisa Fries, Jodi Balfour, Orla Brady.

"Touch The Box & Stare At The Floor" was a very popular old-timey game.

This piece of revisionist history asks a curious question: if psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud got together with author C. S. Lewis, what would they talk about?

It's not a question most people ever considered, but it was the premise of Armand Nicholi's book The Question of God, which in turn formed the basis of Mark St Germain's play Freud's Last Session, which is the source of this film. So there's at least two people who had given this hypothetical some thought.

So what would they talk about? The answer, according to this talkfest, is God. The film pits Freud's atheism and wit against Lewis' Christianity and heart. While they chat, Germany invades Poland, and Freud's daughter Anna struggles to break free of her father's psychological grip on her.

The main reason to see Freud's Last Session is for Hopkins, who churns out amazing performances with regularity and shows no sign of slowing down at 86. His Freud is at the end of his life, but his spark and intelligence remain as bright as ever. It's a performance that shifts in a heartbeat from fiery to funny, and Hopkins does a magnificent job of capturing the humanity and hubris of the famed psychoanalyst. His Austrian accent may be wonky, but his skills as an actor are not.

Opposite him, and more than holding his own, is Goode. It must be daunting to go head-to-head with Hopkins at the best of times, let alone in a role that Hopkins once played (he was C. S. Lewis in Shadowlands back in 1993). But Goode is solid, ensuring his Lewis is just as human and full of inconsistencies as Hopkin's Freud.

The script helps to ensure both characters get an equal arsenal in their battle of wits, but it's too timid to pick a winner. The film spins in circles as each takes it in turns to get the upperhand in this stagy talkfest, which is fine, but there's no real plotline to pull us through. Parts of the debate are interesting, but without any stakes, development, growth, story, or revelations, the movie fizzles out by its ending. The subplots of the war and Anna Freud (played with fire and passion by Fries) are intriguing but occasionally intrude into the flow of proceedings. 

These aren't deal-breakers though. The film is predominantly a well-acted conversation, and for the most part that works. The Godfather of Psychoanalysis and the Creator of Narnia certainly make for an interesting last session.

Civil War

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Victoria's Statewide Mornings program on April 18, 2024.

(MA15+) ★★★★

Director: Alex Garland.

Cast: Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Nelson Lee, Nick Offerman.

Close Encounters: The Remake.

If this movie had come out 10 or 20 years ago, I would have told you its premise was preposterous. A new civil war in America? Ridiculous!

But now... not so much. The idea of the United States becoming not-so-united is painfully possible. Which gives Garland's new film an uneasy edge to it.

That's not the point of Civil War though. Yes, it's about a war tearing America apart, but it's less about the specifics of that war, and more about war journalism, and the role it plays in our world, and the effect it has on those who see this reporting and those who do the reporting. It's about the importance of truth and journalism, the battle between media and propaganda, and the cost of it all.

Civil War follows a group of reporters on their way through the war zone that lies between New York and Washington DC. They aim to reach the President himself and score a rare interview with him before the war ends, in the hopes of getting answers and holding him to account for his actions, which have torn America apart and caused untold damage.

It's easy to complain about the lack of pure politics in Civil War. No, this isn't an anti-Trump polemic (though you can draw your own inferences) or a dissertation on the state of America today (again, do your own reading between the lines) or a foreboding warning (though it does feel disturbingly prescient). 

That's not the story the film is trying to tell. Instead, this is Apocalypse Now from the journalists' point of view. Like Willard's journey up river to find Kurtz, their cross-country trip is a descent into the madness of man, or America (but without too many specifics), with their Kurtz-like figure happening to be the President of the USA.

More interesting is the ways the four main characters deal with and process the horror and violence around them. Dunst's veteran war photographer Lee is hollowed out and emotionally dead, Moura's Joel uses booze, weed and adrenalin to get him through the days and nights, Henderson's old-timer Sammy has seen some shit, but maintains a level and understanding head about it somehow, and Spaeny's Jessie is the newcomer/audience surrogate who's about to be shredded and re-sculpted by what lays ahead. Each performance is distinct, defined, powerful and true.

Then there's Offerman's president, wisely hidden away by Garland so that he only appears in two scenes. But his distinctive voice resounds throughout, spewing propaganda via the airwaves, making the president loom over proceedings like a blood-spattered Star Spangled banner.

Garland's direction regularly thrusts us into the action, either by charging headlong into shootouts or by ramping up the tension to uncomfortable levels. The quiet moments, in between where the journalists get to breath and exist, are occasionally blunt, but usually their full of character and nuance.

There are many great films about journalism - Spotlight and All The President's Men are top of the heap. This isn't too far behind.

Irish Wish

(PG) ★★

Director: Janeen Damian.

Cast: Lindsay Lohan, Ed Speleers, Alexander Vlahos, Ayesha Curry, Elizabeth Tan, Jacinta Mulcahy, Jane Seymour, Matty McCabe, Dawn Bradfield, Maurice Byrne.

"You did leave the park brake on right?"

I was expecting this to be utter shite.

It wasn't. 

It was still shite, but it wasn't total irredeemable shite. 

So praise be to St Brigid for small mercies, I suppose.

Built around the lingering star power of Lindsay Lohan and some pretty bits of Ireland, this paint-by-numbers rom-com is destined to become a rainy hungover Sunday go-to for those who desire a brain-off love buzz. And that is all.

Lohan plays Maddie, literary editor to star writer Paul Kennedy (Vlahos). Her unspoken crush for Paul festers in the lead-up to Paul's wedding back in Ireland, sparking Maddie to make a wish to a mischievous St Brigid (Bradfield). The wish sees Maddie become the bride-to-be, but a handsome photographer (Speleers) puts a kink in her Irish wish.

This is as poorly directed and sloppily written as you would expect. The magical twist of the wish is set-up in a rushed and haphazard manner, despite the film having ample opportunity to establish it earlier. Characters don't talk or act like real people. There is an entire subplot involving Maddie's mum (Seymour) that is presumably included only to beef up the run time because it adds zero to the film - leaving Seymour on the cutting room floor would have saved her the embarrassment of being in this dud. It would have been the humane thing to do.

The film even looks off in places, and doesn't do Ireland justice. Too much of the story is stuck in a mansion set and some sections feel like we've stumbled into Disney's version of Ireland. For a film called Irish Wish, it doesn't capitalise on the promise of its title. There's one moment where a character is driving his convertible and makes a comment about the scenery to another character and the film doesn't cut to a shot of the scenery. In Ireland. Is this a travelogue rom-com or not?

So what saves it from being utter shite? Ed Speelers. He manages to make the dumbest dialogue work, and his chemistry with Lindsay Lohan is sparkling. Speeler's performance pulls Lohan up to his level when they share the screen. Lohan can obviously act, but it's only when she's sharing the screen with Speelers that we get to see that.

Irish Wish isn't going to win any awards, except for maybe a Razzie or two, but at least two of its leads give it a craic.

Wicked Little Letters

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Victoria's Statewide Mornings program on April 4, 2024.

(MA15+) ★★★★

Director: Thea Sharrock.

Cast: Olivia Colman, Jessie Buckley, Anjana Vasan, Timothy Spall, Joanna Scanlan, Gemma Jones, Malachi Kirby, Lolly Adefope, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Skinner, Paul Chahidi, Alisha Weir.

The things people do these days with their hair is shocking.

Swearing is great. It's fun. It's probably good for you. It's also frequently hilarious.

What's great about the swearing in Wicked Little Letters, aside from its inventiveness and humourousness, is that it's a metaphor for the repression and oppression of women. In post-WWI Britain, where women can't vote and are frowned upon for pretty much everything, letting loose with a few vulgarities can say so much, as it does in this charmingly potty-mouthed dramedy.

Colman is Edith Swan, the eager-to-please church mouse who cares for her ageing parents in between receiving vulgar letters that are offensive to her Christian sensibilities. Her enraged father (Spall) summons the constabulary, and all fingers point to the letter-writer being their neighbour Rose (Buckley), the unwed Irish mother next door. 

Based on a remarkable but little-known true story, the film is a colourful snapshot of British life in the 1920s, complete with its misogyny and repression. Much is made of Littlehampton's "woman police officer" (Vasan), who was a real person of the time and a convenient part of the film's core message around female oppression.

It will come as no surprise that Colman is fantastic as Edith Swan, the "good girl" of the piece, but also brilliant is the effervescent Buckley as the "bad girl". Both deliver their performances with believability, wit and empathy, with Buckley threatening to steal the show in the flashier role.

A great array of side-characters fill out proceedings, led by Spall's sneering father and Vasan as the plucky officer struggling to stay afloat in a pool of shallow men. There's not a performance out of place, except for Skinner's, whose lines as a dim-witted cop land awkwardly.

The only downside of Wicked Little Letters is its contrived ending. It pulls together its plot strands, particularly the relationship between Buckley's Rose and her daughter (played by Weir), into a slightly mawkish and far-too-convenient scene, and does the same with its climactic capture of the culprit by moving all the key characters into a single location. History can be a tricky thing to turn into a working narrative, and the efforts to do so here feel overly simplistic.  

But it's not enough to write off Wicked Little Letters. For the most part, this is a ferociously funny comedy that uses its foul mouth to tell a spicy tale of subjugation.